The current state of fantasy literature

[The Grumpy Celt]

I would like to chim in and throw in the name Neil Gaiman. American Gods, Neverwhere and Stardust are fine work of contemp. fantasty fiction, and each is a standalone. Smoke and Mirrors is much the same, except it is all short-stories.

I read somewhere that something like 80 percent of all new technology fails, for one reason or another. I think the same is true for literature - 80 percent of what is on the shelves is not worth the money to buy it and not worth the time to read it.

Gaiman, among others, falls into that 20 percent that is worth reading.

 

[barsoomcore]

I really think alot of this debate boils down to two different types of readers. Readers who do so for some kind of intellectual stimulation and those who do it for enjoyment.

Just to hook in with mmadsen -- you have most definitely invented a contrast that doesn't exist.

I read purely for enjoyment. One of the things I enjoy in a book is having it provide me with intellectual stimulation. It's not the only enjoyment reading can provide me with, but it's definitely one of them. But even when I enjoy a book because it provides me with intellectual stimulation, I am still reading for enjoyment.

These things aren't complicated. Different people enjoy different things. Hurrah!

What's frustrating in these sorts of debates is when people get hung up trying to shield their opinions from criticism (objective/subjective rants, "everybody else thinks" defenses, "I'm such an iconclast" attacks) instead of just throwing their ideas out into the ring and seeing how they fare.

It's human nature to want to be right. And of course, most of us are lazy buggers, so we'd rather be right without having to figure out the truth. And finally, we've learned all our life that it's bad to be wrong. All that adds up to people digging in and insisting that their position is correct -- while trying to prevent debate, or shout down opposing points of view, or find tactics that seem to nullify the need for debate and analysis.

I do it all the time. Cause basically I'm an insecure dork.

I run film sets and I run software development teams and I teach martial arts and in all these enterprises one thing is always true -- if people feel comfortable with being wrong, they will be right more often. Because when you can be wrong, you can enter into real debate on your positions and come out with an answer that is closer to the truth -- INSTEAD of trying to defend your position beyond the point of rationality.

It's very difficult to hear what other people are saying unless you're willing to consider the idea that you might be wrong.

Which neatly contrasts my previous notion that "Sometimes everybody else IS wrong." Life's like that a lot, I find.

 

[RiggsWolfe]

Oh, I dunno. That's one of the good(?) things about the Internet, it gives a potential audience to anyone who wants to spout off about any subject. That doesn't mean he thinks his opinion is better than anyone else's, merely that he has a strong opinion.

It was something about the tone of the website that I found offensive. I have trouble putting it into words, I just felt he came across as feeling like he was superior to those with "less discerning taste". Just a gut feeling really.

I think you've also hit a crucial point. I like some of the "classics" of the genre, but have little interest in pursuing some others. I have a really good friend who considers R.A. Salvatore to be an incredibly talented writer (which, I guess, from a certain point of view I can't argue with), and I read and enjoy plenty of things that don't have the kind of "intrinsic" value that some seem to want to require. I read books that entertain me. It helps that I'm entertained by a lot of history, biography, astrophysics, etc. as well.[\qupte]

Oh don't get me wrong. I read stuff like a "Brief History of Time", various computer programming books, stuff like that. As for the classics of the genre, even Tolkien I find to be hard to read at times. It just...moves slow. I have a similiar problem with Jordan. Especially in the later novels. I've taken to skipping any chapter that has Egwene, Nynaeve, or Elayne in it. (Bad I know, but those three drive me nuts. )

In my case, I've somehow found it very difficult to read anymore. I've probably just got too much going on in my life; four kids, will do that to you I suppose. So I've become very picky. Books that don't just reach up, grab me by the throat and demand that I finish them tend to not get read, unfortunately. When I was younger I read mediocre books by the truckload and didn't really think twice about it.

I read ALOT. I'm the type of person that will typically read 2+ novels a week. I tend to try to read longer books just to make it last longer. If I really like it, I finish it in a day or two. (The last Harry Potter book comes to mind.). Of course, now that I think about it more, my reading has slowed over the last month because I'm in my final semester of my computer science degree. (32 years old and just now getting a degree).

 

[RiggsWolfe]

I believe you've drawn a false dichotomy.

If you find pulp swords & sorcery "classics" like Robert E. Howard's Conan stories "utterly boring and hard to read," something's wrong.

To answer your first sentence. Why? Why is it a false dichotomy? Admittedly, there are those who read for both reasons. But I have been around long enough to notice that more often the two camps don't meet. For instance, those who do it for some kind of intellectual stimulation tend to be somewhat arrogant and condescending about the "mainstream". The ones who do it purely for enjoyment tend to find the others elitist and snobby. These are of course generalizations, but I see it alot. Especially on college campuses.

As for the Conan stories I've never read them. I will say that most of the older fantasy and sci-fi I've read I disliked. I have that reaction to alot of "classics" across boundaries. (The only exception being movies, I like alot of older movies as much as modern "popcorn" movies.) Perhaps the only exceptions for me would be Asimov, Heinlein, Tolkien, and Bradbury (in small doses for him). Interestingly enough Heinlein would probably be a good example of the kind of sex this website talks about, yet he was a contemporary of Asimov's. (If memory serves. )

 

[RiggsWolfe]

This all has nothing to do with 'high art' vs. 'low art', 'intellectual' vs. 'popular'. People read for all kinds of reasons, and derive all kinds of different pleasures from the books they read. Its possible to go from Borges and Nabokov one week to King and Clancy [well, not me...] the next. Different kinds of writing, different pleasures.

No offense, but your reply is what I'm talking about. Did you notice how you had a need to distance yourself from the King and Clancy readers? I on the other hand could care less about Borges and Nabokov.

 

[RiggsWolfe]

Just to hook in with mmadsen -- you have most definitely invented a contrast that doesn't exist.

I read purely for enjoyment. One of the things I enjoy in a book is having it provide me with intellectual stimulation. It's not the only enjoyment reading can provide me with, but it's definitely one of them. But even when I enjoy a book because it provides me with intellectual stimulation, I am still reading for enjoyment.

As I said in my reply to MMadsen's post, I was speaking in generalities. See, I view the intellectual reader in much the same way I view film critics. Both of them somewhere along the line ceased to have fun and began to view their chosen form of entertainment as some kind of high artform. I'm not explaining it well, but I truly believe for instance, that it is a rare movie critic who still enjoys movies. They're too jaded.

These things aren't complicated. Different people enjoy different things. Hurrah!

What's frustrating in these sorts of debates is when people get hung up trying to shield their opinions from criticism (objective/subjective rants, "everybody else thinks" defenses, "I'm such an iconclast" attacks) instead of just throwing their ideas out into the ring and seeing how they fare.

It's human nature to want to be right. And of course, most of us are lazy buggers, so we'd rather be right without having to figure out the truth. And finally, we've learned all our life that it's bad to be wrong. All that adds up to people digging in and insisting that their position is correct -- while trying to prevent debate, or shout down opposing points of view, or find tactics that seem to nullify the need for debate and analysis.
[\quote]

I wholeheartedly agree with your first sentence. However, I think people like say, the creator of the website that was linked to at the beginning of this whole thread would probably view someone who liked the Fifth Sorceross as some kind of inferior specimen. I suppose my idea is that this kind of thread is an example of my "non-existant" divide. To me saying it doesn't exist is similiar to saying there is no difference between Liberal and Conservative political thought. The existence of moderates (where someone like you might fall if we take your reading habits to be an example) does not mean that there are not two different camps. It just means that not everybody falls into those camps.

I do it all the time. Cause basically I'm an insecure dork.

I run film sets and I run software development teams and I teach martial arts and in all these enterprises one thing is always true -- if people feel comfortable with being wrong, they will be right more often. Because when you can be wrong, you can enter into real debate on your positions and come out with an answer that is closer to the truth -- INSTEAD of trying to defend your position beyond the point of rationality.

It's very difficult to hear what other people are saying unless you're willing to consider the idea that you might be wrong.

Which neatly contrasts my previous notion that "Sometimes everybody else IS wrong." Life's like that a lot, I find.

First off, nothing wrong with being an insecure dork. You'll find alot of those in gaming forums. Again, a generalization.

Secondly, your career sounds interesting. You again, are an exception that proves the rule. Most people view computer programmers as sedentary, yet apparently you're not only active but into martial arts. I'd probably have a heart attack if I tried martial arts. I'm a walking...well, sitting....computer programming stereotype.

I am willing to consider the idea I might be wrong. In this case, this whole thread revolves around opinions however, which gets us into a subjective area. (Sorry, couldn't help the subjective reference, as my gaming group would say "I failed my willpower save")

 

[Desdichado]

What's frustrating in these sorts of debates is when people get hung up trying to shield their opinions from criticism (objective/subjective rants, "everybody else thinks" defenses, "I'm such an iconclast" attacks) instead of just throwing their ideas out into the ring and seeing how they fare.

Probably because it boils down to "I don't know art, but I know what I like." At the end of the day, nobody has to justify their tastes, they just are what they are. It's probably frustrating to say "I like XXXX" and then be shot down for saying that.

Me, I like to debate the finer points of why I like things, so I have no problem with it. But if I did, I'd probably do exactly what you just said above.

It's human nature to want to be right. And of course, most of us are lazy buggers, so we'd rather be right without having to figure out the truth. And finally, we've learned all our life that it's bad to be wrong. All that adds up to people digging in and insisting that their position is correct -- while trying to prevent debate, or shout down opposing points of view, or find tactics that seem to nullify the need for debate and analysis.

I do it all the time. Cause basically I'm an insecure dork.

That's a good point, but not necessarily applicable to taste in fantasy literature. I don't argue with my neighbor about why I don't think Salvatore is a particularly good writer, even though he really likes him, because the reason he's a good writer to him is because he reads his books and is entertained by them. I don't think there's any right or wrong in that regard, nor is there any truth to be figured out. To me, Salvatore's weaknesses; his reliance on cliches, his overdescriptive combats, his poor dialogue and character development, to use a few examples, stand out more than his positive aspects as a writer, so I'm only marginally interested (if that) in reading something he's written.

I run film sets and I run software development teams and I teach martial arts and in all these enterprises one thing is always true -- if people feel comfortable with being wrong, they will be right more often. Because when you can be wrong, you can enter into real debate on your positions and come out with an answer that is closer to the truth -- INSTEAD of trying to defend your position beyond the point of rationality.

It's very difficult to hear what other people are saying unless you're willing to consider the idea that you might be wrong.

Which neatly contrasts my previous notion that "Sometimes everybody else IS wrong." Life's like that a lot, I find.

Security is really where it's all at. I find that in "debates" or even discussions of any kind, if I actually know something I'm hard to move. I used to have a friend that I haven't seen in many years who used to toss off pop science references all the time, when I on the other hand had often read all the Nature and Science and other academic journal publications that were the real scoop on what he was talking about. Since it was immediately obvious to me that I knew a great deal more about what he was talking about than he did, the fact that he stated his innaccurate information with such authority didn't really serve to move me anywhere. On the other hand, if I had a well-formed opinion based on purely subjective material, or stuff I had read but not a great deal about, or simply stuff that I hadn't given a lot of thought to, I'm the first to hedge my statements with "In my opinion" or "I belive" or "It seems to me" and I'll gladly admit that I could very well be wrong.

Of course, there's a fine line between academic snobbery here and confidence and security in your own opinion, and willingness to admit that you don't know everything all the time, though.

Hmmm... does any of this have anything to do with fantasy literature? I really don't know.

 

[Desdichado]

As I said in my reply to MMadsen's post, I was speaking in generalities. See, I view the intellectual reader in much the same way I view film critics. Both of them somewhere along the line ceased to have fun and began to view their chosen form of entertainment as some kind of high artform. I'm not explaining it well, but I truly believe for instance, that it is a rare movie critic who still enjoys movies. They're too jaded.

For what it's worth, RiggsWolfe, I've got yer back on this one. I certainly believe such individuals exist, and they tend to be quite vocal.

 

[RiggsWolfe]

Probably because it boils down to "I don't know art, but I know what I like." At the end of the day, nobody has to justify their tastes, they just are what they are. It's probably frustrating to say "I like XXXX" and then be shot down for saying that.

THIS is exactly what I was driving at. People like the guy who wrote that webpage come across like to him, if you like the Fifth Sorceross, a novel I have not read but now am interested in ironically enough, you have to justify it somehow or you're an inferior mind.

Of course, there's a fine line between academic snobbery here and confidence and security in your own opinion, and willingness to admit that you don't know everything all the time, though.

Hmmm... does any of this have anything to do with fantasy literature? I really don't know.

Hehe. I had to restrain myself from speaking too much about academic snobbery, though in my story about the guy I worked with that was precisely what I was thinking about.

 

[RiggsWolfe]

For what it's worth, RiggsWolfe, I've got yer back on this one. I certainly believe such individuals exist, and they tend to be quite vocal.

Agreed. To give another movie reference, I long ago became convinced that these types of people are the ones who vote on the Academy Awards, one reason I haven't watched them in over a decade. ::does some math:: 15 years actually. Longer than I thought!

In any case, I am not sure there's much point to arguing to much about the relative merits of current fantasy literature, some people will like it, some won't. Some will view it as more entertaining than past attempts, some will view it as a depressing decline in quality. To each their own.